Sunday, July 12, 2015

"The anti-Zionist game displays Iran's missile power and the Zelzal,
Zolfaqar and Sejjil missiles (all built in Iran) are used by the players
in the game's first stage," game production project manager Mehdi Atash
Jaam told FNA on Saturday.

"In this game, users break into the Zionist regime's air defense and target Israel," he added.

Elaborating on the reason for developing a game in which the Iranian
missiles destroy targets in Israel, Atash Jaam said that it was a move
in retaliation for the console game, 'Battlefield', that includes scenes
simulating attacks on Tehran and its Milad Tower.

'Missile Strike' was unveiled on Friday on the occasion of the International Quds Day.

But it's okay. Once they sign this 'agreement' in Vienna, they will agree not to attack Israel for at least ten years. What could go wrong? Consider this:

On its editorial page this morning, the New York Times permits Ahmed Yousef, "a senior adviser to the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya," to use its soapbox to call for a hudna between Israel and Hamas.

A
truce is referred to in Arabic as a “hudna.” Typically covering 10
years, a hudna is recognized in Islamic jurisprudence as a legitimate
and binding contract. A hudna extends beyond the Western concept of a
cease-fire and obliges the parties to use the period to seek a
permanent, nonviolent resolution to their differences. The Koran finds
great merit in such efforts at promoting understanding among different
people. Whereas war dehumanizes the enemy and makes it easier to kill, a
hudna affords the opportunity to humanize one’s opponents and
understand their position with the goal of resolving the intertribal or
international dispute.

Such a concept — a period of nonwar but
only partial resolution of a conflict — is foreign to the West and has
been greeted with much suspicion. Many Westerners I speak to wonder how
one can stop the violence without ending the conflict.

Actually what Yousef is describing is what's called a 'cease fire' or a
'truce' in western parlance. The problem is that he has mischaracterized
the true nature of hudna. In a
blog post in August, I cited an article by Tashbih Sayyed, the Editor
in Chief of Pakistan Today and The Muslim World Today, President of
Council for Democracy and Tolerance, an adjunct fellow of Hudson
Institute, and a regular columnist for newspapers across the world (in
other words - the elusive 'moderate Muslim') (which I can no longer find
at the original site) which described how Islam uses a hudna:

Political
Islam finds a number of examples in the life of Prophet Muhammad that
sanction the use of treaties as a tactical necessity. In explaining why
he signed the Oslo Accord, Yasser Arafat cited a truce signed by Prophet
Muhammad with the Meccan tribe Quraish at Hudaybiyah in 628 C.E.
According to the PLO leader, Prophet
Muhammad had signed the truce when he was not strong enough to win a war
and it was to last for ten years. But when, within two years of the
signing, the Muslims felt that they have gained enough strength to
defeat the Quraish, they broke the truce, attacked the Quraish and
captured Mecca.

A prominent Saudi sheikh, 'Abd Al-Muhsin
Al-'Obikan, also referred to the same treaty while condemning
Hezbollah's actions in Lebanon. He issued the edict against Hezbollah's
actions not because he considered them wrong but because in his view
Muslims, at the moment, are not strong enough to defeat Israel. He said
that since the Muslims have no chance of winning this campaign against
the Jews, a temporary solution is necessary - a truce similar to the
temporary truce of Hudaybiyya.

According to the Saudi Sheikh, Islamic
laws (Shari'a) also "place preconditions and constraints on the
declaring of jihad, which must be considered in order to ensure the
greatest gain for the nation and spare it loss - [that is,] in order to ensure the minimum possible damage and avoid greater damage.

One
of the preconditions regarding jihad [states] that the [the jihad
fighters] must have [sufficient] capability to inflict harm on the enemy
and to repulse its evil, so as to ensure the lives, the property, and
the honor of the Muslims and to safeguard them from aggression or harm,
that is, [from] destruction of property, from violation of honor, and
from bloodshed."

Those who understand the Islamist ethos know that for political Islam, disengagement, a cease-fire, or a pull back on the part of the "enemy" is a sign of its weakness. No one has more experience with this treacherous mindset than the Israelis.

0 Comments:

Links to this post:

About Me

I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com